brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Ratings tweak
Even though I wasn't here, I was still thinking about a couple of potential improvements (I know, pretty weird since I wasn't intending on coming back). Anyway, I've forgotten most of the ideas, but I was wondering if, instead of having all new articles start at Class 5, if we should have an "unrated" rating, with a '?' icon or something. That way, there's a handy category for the QCG to go through and rate the unrated articles, and a new article doesn't necessarily have to be a bad one. Just an idea. Also, should date articles be even rated (eg May 2)? 03:16, May 2, 2011 (UTC) *Sounds good to me.:) 03:18, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :*'Support' both ideas. (I knew you couldn't really leave). 03:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :*I really like the unrated idea. 03:23, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :*'Support'. It surprises me somewhat that nobody made the unrated template. FB100Z • talk • 03:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC) While we're all here, can we make the QCG a bit less of a cabal? Don't misinterpret me, I don't have any intention of joining. FB100Z • talk • 03:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :What do you think we should do? If we just let anyone in, then anybody could just go around changing ratings. 03:35, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::In this case, I think that a cabal is needed. Keep in mind that basically anyone who has demonstrated that they have a clue what is going on can get into the group as it is - but it wouldn't be a good thing if, say, this guy were able to get in easily ;) 03:40, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::Per Ajr. P.S. like my new sig? 03:41, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::: Per Jag and Ajr, if you've proven you're active in successfully nominating articles for rating, you're pretty much in. What's the problem with that? (and cool new sig Jag :D) 03:44, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Thanks. 03:46, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::"The user must have made at least 1000 mainspace edits, and have been on the wiki for at least 30 days." A thousand (!) mainspace edits and 30 days of being a Brickipedian doesn't prove one's state of being active in successfully nominating articles for rating. Please read my comment more carefully; I said "less of a cabal." Subtle difference there. FB100Z • talk • 03:48, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::Er... that shouldn't really be there, it was just left there from when it was copied from the RfA page. Removed now. 03:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Yea, I didn't even know that that was there, especially since one person was added to the group without those prereqs. 03:51, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Actually, I've changed it to one hundred edits and one week. 03:51, May 2, 2011 (UTC) (undent) @Ajr: who was that? 03:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :Perhaps we can eliminate the QCC (guess that the last letter means ;) altogether and rate articles based on Ajr's system. FB100Z • talk • 03:57, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::It's Quality Check GROUP, not Quality Check Cabal. What's Ajr's system? 03:58, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::*happiness.... dying.... The current system is fast and efficient. The QCG is there to make quick and informed decisions on an article's status, and they can change it whenever they want. How many forums would there be if we had to do this, and what would you gain out of it except for a huge waiting time for votes to pass, and possible comments on an article's rating from users who may not yet know exactly what they're talking about? PS: taking a shot at people have rights constantly really doesn't make you popular... 04:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::"taking a shot at people have rights constantly" I'm not sure what you're saying here...plus, I'm not attacking anyone; I just don't like cabals :P FB100Z • talk • 04:36, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Well, admins/QCG members are hardly a secret political clique or faction :P 06:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::::Some people think they are. ^_^ FB100Z • talk • 20:58, May 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Support:' I really think this well work and make life allot easier for the QCG than having to go through all the Class 5 Articles. 09:55, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ------- *.... and break. Please let's get back on topic here (see first few comments). Feel free to start another forum if you want to. 04:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC) * Maybe something like this for an icon (if it does go through)? I'm not saying it has to look like that, I was looking for a different font for the ? but couldn't find what I was after, but even if it's just used as a placeholder? 06:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC) *:Hehe, I like that one :3 13:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC) *::Does it have to be purple? FB100Z • talk • 20:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::*I like that one.:D 23:34, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::Support: I really like that one! Yay Purple! --...Half Way out of the Dark... 23:36, May 2, 2011 (UTC) :::I don't really care about the colour, it was the concept I was mainly going for. I chose purple though because it wasn't used by any other icons, and didn't really imply any rating (usually green=good, red=bad, etc). And grey looks a bit bland. 00:05, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :Support, and not just because it's purple. ;) handy tool, especially when you've got undiscussed "Meh" pages. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 14:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Support idea, but oppose way. The purple colour is dreadful. I'm okay with the questionmark, but is there any other symbol which could be used? And does it have to have a grey box around it? A small circle with an even smaller questionmark should do (I propose some fresh colour), since seeing a grey box in the corner of every article with purple questionmark seems a bit disturbing to me... :S A bot could add that new themplate to articles, but please only mainspace ones and no dates (why do we have rating templates on dates? They are only used for reference and can only be changed if something happened on that day, so we can't really edit it often). 14:36, May 3, 2011 (UTC) *Since its already in effect can I add it to the Brickipedia:Content Improvement page. Here's an example: * ' Unrated Articles' - These articles are "unrated", and are to be voted by a QCG member to bring the article to a higher class rating. 19:50, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ** Makes sense to me. 00:03, May 4, 2011 (UTC) *** Mhmm, agreed. I don't give a flying fladoodle about the color, but it's gotta look a bit...not purple. xD -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 12:54, May 4, 2011 (UTC) Reviving I've been thinking about how the Rating template works. At the moment, you have to go to a page and change the rating for that page, on that page. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a central page or pages that the ratings for articles are controlled on. This would also show whether people not in the QCG had been changing ratings- we could simply look at the history of the page and make sure that only QCG members had changed the ratings. I'm not sure how it would work technically though- I'm not sure how to do that. Coders? 23:03, June 3, 2011 (UTC) * I really wouldn't know how to code anything like this, all I can really do is encourage QCG members to put +c3, +c4, etc in their edit summaries when they change ratings and/or to use the history template so it can be verified that it's a QCG member who changes them. But an automatic system or one which is somehow restricted to QCG members would be great. 06:51, June 4, 2011 (UTC) **I was thinking exactly that. 18:21, June 4, 2011 (UTC) **Sounds good...but how would we do it? **I was going to start developing an extension for this once my exams are done. Stay tuned... 23:32, June 4, 2011 (UTC) **Can't we just simplify things and allow anyone to change it? (And, of course, have discussion in case of conflict.) FB100Z • talk • 23:41, June 4, 2011 (UTC) **'Got it!' First of all we create a custom user group: "Crown Knights" (or "Quality Check group Members") We then either use Rating: or /Rating. We then protect said page. A bot then adds "Crown Knights" to all such pages. This should mean that only users an that group can edit the page. The new Rating template is just or /Rating]]. The Rating page just has "2" "4" ect. All this coding should work. I have MediaWiki references. 18:55, June 13, 2011 (UTC) I've made an "opposed" image, . I thought that this could link to the forum on it. 04:49, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *Can we please get rid of the boarders on the images for oasis? You monobook people will kindly remember that the oasis template is different from the monobook one... and 100% of our viewers use oasis... 05:02, June 13, 2011 (UTC) :*I do use Oasis :D Sure, we can change it, I just copied the unrated template. But some people do use Monobook though... 05:05, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *I am familiar with some code. I found this page on Mediawiki.org pertaining to ratings, evaluation, assigning who can do what. Anyway, you may want to check it out. 06:01, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *@Ajr, I'll make some alternate logos (just remove the borders) and apply it to the Oasis section soon. @Mykheh, wow that looks exactly like what we want :) Anyone have any idea how to get this extension? 09:45, June 13, 2011 (UTC) ** Ajr: better? 10:07, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *** <3 14:19, June 13, 2011 (UTC) ** No clue whats going on here, but for an extension you'd need to contact wikia staff. Kingcjc 14:46, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *** Then We'll contact the Staff - me want this extension.:P 18:59, June 13, 2011 (UTC) ****Just saying, from a technical standpoint this extension looks poorly written and terrible. I doubt that Wikia would enable it anyways. 20:56, June 13, 2011 (UTC) *****Looking at that page, I see Special Pages come with the extension (like Special:AskForReview). Star Wars Wiki contains Special Pages that other wikis do not have, which probably means they enabled some extension. 00:10, June 14, 2011 (UTC)